Free Speech

Julie is a Non-Residential fellow with Stanford CIS. She represents writers, filmmakers, musicians, and others who rely on fair use in creating their works. Julie has represented visual artist Shepard Fairey in copyright litigation against The Associated Press over Fairey’s “Obama Hope” posters, RDR Books in its copyright and Lanham Act dispute with J.K.

Marvin Ammori is a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert. He was instrumental to the adoption of network neutrality rules in the US and abroad–having been perhaps the nation’s leading legal advocate advancing network neutrality–and also instrumental to the defeat of the SOPA and PIPA copyright/censorship bills.

Paddy Leerssen is the Open Internet Fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. His work focuses on digital media and communications law, with a particular emphasis on net neutrality policy. He previously held positions at the Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR), and the non-governmental organization European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Pages

Abstract

Though scholars have identified the expanding scope of First Amendment speech doctrine, little attention has been paid to the theoretical transformation happening inside the doctrine that has accompanied its outward creep. Taking up this overlooked perspective, this Article uncovers a new speech theory: the libertarian tradition. This new tradition both is generative of the doctrine’s expansion and risks undermining the First Amendment’s theoretical foundations.

The 2016 election has put squarely on the public agenda a series of questions related to the norms of social media, everything from the proliferation of fake news on Facebook to the trolling culture of Twitter. These questions are not new. The culture of abuse online towards women, for example, is a matter about which one of us wrote a book.

The news that eBay and Amazon are moving to block sales of Confederate-related merchandise is causing concern among commentators like the New York Times’ Josh Barro. Barro and others have no time for Confederacy nostalgia, but worry that having “Amazon and eBay exercising a lot of discretion over third-party postings may not be a great road to go down

Most people believe that privacy and free speech are always at odds. People all over the world have struggled with how to reconcile the problems of media gossip with our commitment to free and open public debate for over a century. The rise of the Internet has made this problem more urgent. We live in an age of corporate and government surveillance of our lives. And our free speech culture has created an anything-goes environment on the web, where offensive and hurtful speech about others is rife.

"But Andrew McLaughlin, the cofounder of Higher Ground Labs, a company that invests in technology to help progressive candidates, believes that platforms should suppress propaganda in ad space. “Despite their best intentions, tech companies have built systems that are so open to manipulation by bots and trolls and other techniques that they effectively reward propaganda,” he says.

"Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, compared social networks to town squares of centuries past — an analogy social-media executives have themselvesused.

"“Historically, the place you went to exercise your speech rights was the public square. Now the equivalent is Twitter and YouTube and Facebook,” said Daphne Keller of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. “In a practical matter, how much you can speak is not in the hands of the constitution but in the hands of these private companies.”"

"“Social media companies need to think very carefully about what next steps they’re going to take,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director for the Center for Media Justice. “It’s a fine line to walk between maintaining safety and maintaining freedom of speech.”"

"“The anonymous account holder is safe, for now,” said Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. “Perhaps the Department of Justice has learned a lesson. Perhaps the Trump administration may try to find the poster another way, for example by monitoring the government’s INS network.”"

"Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, called the government’s behavior “craven” and described the CBP summons as a “classic case of abuse”.

“For the government, a federal law enforcement officer, to not understand the very basics of protecting free speech and following the rule of law is egregious,” she said.

"“It seems like the government lied to Twitter about why it wanted the information,” says Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. “It’s not entitled to the information under the statutory authority it cites.”"

"“That’s of importance to anyone who uses the internet and digital products and services,” says Neil Richards, a Washington University law professor who specializes in privacy and First Amendment theory.

Richards, for one, anticipates the latter. “I don’t think it’ll do much more than correct an error,” he says. “The court doesn’t want to set precedent for other cases unexpectedly without having those facts in front of it.”"

"Daphne Keller at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society said internet companies doing business in countries with laws restricting speech know they will be expected to comply with the rules. One common means of doing so without deleting lawful speech elsewhere is to offer country-specific versions of services, like YouTube Thailand, said Keller.

"The company can then honor national law on the version of the service that is targeted to, and primarily used in, that country," she said."

The Symposium, co-sponsored by Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, took place on Friday, February 10, 2012. Scholars and noted practitioners from across the country joined STLR to discuss current and emerging issues in First Amendment law and the Internet.

RSVP for this free event today.6:00pm Reception - Neukom Faculty Lounge - Neukom Building 7:00pm Panel - Room 290 - Law School Building Live streaming through UStream will be available and a final video recording will be available on our YouTube channel.

From local issues like the BART protests to national and international movements like Occupy and the Arab Spring, individuals and organizations are increasingly utilizing the Internet, social networking, and mobile devices to communicate and connect. This diverse panel from academia, public interest, and private practice, will discuss the opportunities and challenges for free speech as it increasingly moves from the town square to the networked world. Co-sponsored by the California State Bar Cyberspace Committee and the Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Evgeny Morozov and Andrew McLaughlin will debate the sincerity, utility and repercussions of America's commitment to a free Internet. They will discuss the desireability of network neutrality and network regulation in the context of US foreign policy, the ways to balance user privacy with the growing needs of law enforcement agencies; and the emerging threats to freedom of expression that are inherent in the technical design as well as the business imperatives of today's Web.

Why is it bad when the government or companies monitor our reading or web-surfing? We have intuitions that this kind of surveillance is bad, but have failed to explain why digital monitoring in an age of terror and innovation is really a problem. In Intellectual Privacy, Neil Richards offers a new way of thinking about monitoring of our thinking, reading, and communications, one that ensures that our ideas and values keep pace with our technologies.

A growing chorus of opposition has emerged around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) now pending in the House, as well as its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT-IP Act. If enacted, SOPA would provide unprecedented power for law enforcement and private actors to force service providers to block access to internet sites or shut off revenue streams.

Evgeny Morozov and Andrew McLaughlin debated the sincerity, utility and repercussions of America's commitment to a free Internet. They discussed the desirability of network neutrality and network regulation in the context of US foreign policy, the ways to balance user privacy with the growing needs of law enforcement agencies; and the emerging threats to freedom of expression that are inherent in the technical design as well as the business imperatives of today's Web.

Evgeny Morozov and Andrew McLaughlin debated the sincerity, utility and repercussions of America's commitment to a free Internet. They discussed the desireability of network neutrality and network regulation in the context of US foreign policy, the ways to balance user privacy with the growing needs of law enforcement agencies; and the emerging threats to freedom of expression that are inherent in the technical design as well as the business imperatives of today's Web.